4 ms·
Makes me why we don’t count NASA under DoD similar to DARPA to help with their funding.
by devonkim 7y ago
Makes me why we don’t count NASA under DoD similar to DARPA to help with their funding.
- mikeash 7y agoNASA exists to be the civilian side of the US’s aerospace ventures. The military side is the Air Force.
- wolfgke 7y ago> NASA exists to be the civilian side of the US’s aerospace ventures. The military side is the Air Force. Not the Space Force? > https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/trump-space-force https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/trump-spac... ;-)
- Kadin 7y agoThe point of NASA was to create an agency for non-military aerospace development, while ARPA was supposed to handle military applications. I think Eisenhower thought that this would insulate NASA from postwar budget cuts and make its funding more secure rather than less. In retrospect, Eisenhower was a hell of an optimist.
- 0xffff2 7y agoIn addition to NASA's explicitly non-military nature, we do actually maintain some relationship with our USAF counterparts. When it makes sense to do so, we're happy to work on mutually beneficial projects.